Deleted deleted
Well-Known Member
Tiger: Why would you leave a laptop running all night? Laptops weren't designed for 24/7 use.
OT: 23 Ways to Speed Up Windows XP
- Thread starter Thomas Rogers
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Michelle Widell
Active Member
I have AMD in both my desktop and my laptop. (And I have a Mac too..)
My laptop runs 24 hrs a day 7 days a week. The schrren shuts down after 20 minutes of inactivity. Been doing that since I got it 2 years ago. The only time it is off is when it travels with me.
Tom
Tom
Kevin Palmer
Well-Known Member
I don't even turn mine off to tavel with it. I put it in standby mode. Ready to go when I open the lid. Been doing so for over two years now...
Kevin Palmer
Well-Known Member
I don't even turn mine off to tavel with it. I put it in standby mode. Ready to go when I open the lid. Been doing so for over two years now...
Travis Munday
Well-Known Member
Darin,
Eh....I had a desktop for 5 years before the laptop that was turned off less then 25 times and never had a problem. The laptop has three fans that are always on. I've almost got to use the a/c adapter all the time, because without it, this behemoth drains the poor battery in about 2 hours. The heat problem comes in cycles, after a few hours of use, the fans will need to kick into high gear to cool everything off, and after 10-15 mins, everything is cool again. But one of the problems is that the hinge has worn out and even when closed, the screen won't shut-off, so it's just pumping heat into the computer. So I keep it open and turn the screen off manually. With it propped up, the computer stays very cool, until I start using it and block the fan intake with my leg or something. If I use it in on the couch or something and have it sitting on the cusion, it gets way too hot and shuts down.
Eh....I had a desktop for 5 years before the laptop that was turned off less then 25 times and never had a problem. The laptop has three fans that are always on. I've almost got to use the a/c adapter all the time, because without it, this behemoth drains the poor battery in about 2 hours. The heat problem comes in cycles, after a few hours of use, the fans will need to kick into high gear to cool everything off, and after 10-15 mins, everything is cool again. But one of the problems is that the hinge has worn out and even when closed, the screen won't shut-off, so it's just pumping heat into the computer. So I keep it open and turn the screen off manually. With it propped up, the computer stays very cool, until I start using it and block the fan intake with my leg or something. If I use it in on the couch or something and have it sitting on the cusion, it gets way too hot and shuts down.
Andy G
Active Member
Actually, many laptops are now designed to run 24/7. In fact, there is a segment of high power laptops called desktop replacement laptops.
You should be able to do anything with these you can do with a desktop, including let it run 24/7.
Of course, for the $1800+ they want for a good DR, I can build 2 killer desktops.
Tiger- If you are going to replace your laptop soon, go for something with an Intel Centrino or an AMD Turion mobile CPU. Both of these CPUs run in the 20W ballpark. They stay pretty cool. OR I should say, Lukewarm. Intel has owned the mobile space for a couple of years now with the Centrino, but AMDs new Turion64 is putting a lot of pressure on it, and is probably more wallet friendly.
Any mobile with a P4 is going to run very hot (as you know). Athlon 64 laptops also consume a decent amount of power; but manage to stay cooler than the p4. Centrino and Turion is where it is at for "mobile" laptops. Athlon64 is where it is at for high power DR laptops, IMO.
You should be able to do anything with these you can do with a desktop, including let it run 24/7.
Of course, for the $1800+ they want for a good DR, I can build 2 killer desktops.
Tiger- If you are going to replace your laptop soon, go for something with an Intel Centrino or an AMD Turion mobile CPU. Both of these CPUs run in the 20W ballpark. They stay pretty cool. OR I should say, Lukewarm. Intel has owned the mobile space for a couple of years now with the Centrino, but AMDs new Turion64 is putting a lot of pressure on it, and is probably more wallet friendly.
Any mobile with a P4 is going to run very hot (as you know). Athlon 64 laptops also consume a decent amount of power; but manage to stay cooler than the p4. Centrino and Turion is where it is at for "mobile" laptops. Athlon64 is where it is at for high power DR laptops, IMO.
Travis Munday
Well-Known Member
Nah, I'm not looking to replace my laptop any time soon. It's a DR, and I paid a bit more then $1800 for it....I guess I failed to mention that I do have a DR and the heat that the CPU and HD will put out is 'normal' for this category considering the higher capacities. I've specifically got a dual processor MoBo running at 3.2 GHz and an 80 GB HD, high powered graphics card, 17" wide screen yada-yada-yada, it all adds up to heat.
The laptop I wanted ran an AMD, but the store was out, and around here there are only maybe 3 places that sell laptops, and only one that carries DRs, so I had to get something else. I knew it would run a bit hot, but that's OK. It does everythign I want, has room to do a lot more, and looks good while doing it. Unfortunatly, it sucks as a portable laptop...no battery life, heavy, and kinda fragile. But that's not why I bought it, so it's all good.
The laptop I wanted ran an AMD, but the store was out, and around here there are only maybe 3 places that sell laptops, and only one that carries DRs, so I had to get something else. I knew it would run a bit hot, but that's OK. It does everythign I want, has room to do a lot more, and looks good while doing it. Unfortunatly, it sucks as a portable laptop...no battery life, heavy, and kinda fragile. But that's not why I bought it, so it's all good.
Kelly Traylor
Member
Good info,
Thanks TJR
KatManT
Thanks TJR
KatManT
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Best way to accelerate any computer is 32 feet-per-second...
Macs are good for four things:
1) Desktop Publishing
2) Boat Anchors
3) Target Practice
4) Door Stops
PCs are good for a few more:
1) Games
2) CAD
3) Programming
4) Boat Anchors
5) Target Practice
-Not good for door stops as I usually stub my toe on the monitors....
I've used both, plus UNIX, SUN, SGI, and LINUX systems. I don't like Macs all that much, mainly because I am not used to the command system. UNIX and LINUX are neat, but I'm not all that into re-compiling every time I want to change hardware. SUN and SGI are not that good for anything but engineering/CAD/chemistry/movie production type situations.
Macs are good for four things:
1) Desktop Publishing
2) Boat Anchors
3) Target Practice
4) Door Stops
PCs are good for a few more:
1) Games
2) CAD
3) Programming
4) Boat Anchors
5) Target Practice
-Not good for door stops as I usually stub my toe on the monitors....
I've used both, plus UNIX, SUN, SGI, and LINUX systems. I don't like Macs all that much, mainly because I am not used to the command system. UNIX and LINUX are neat, but I'm not all that into re-compiling every time I want to change hardware. SUN and SGI are not that good for anything but engineering/CAD/chemistry/movie production type situations.
scott r
Well-Known Member
uhoh, I turned this into a flame war. All it takes is one of us mac "bad apples" to make things go bad in a hurry eh? hahahahahaha
By the way, with OS X, you never have to touch the command line if you don't want to. I do, because I find that I can get things done quicker via the command line than I can with the cutesy windows. It's nice to have the command line as an option though.
I'm not a mac-only zealot though. I have 3 AMD-based systems around here (I don't allow intel into my home), all running 24/7 along with my powermac and powerbook (which I use and leave on all the time). Most laptops today are designed to be left on 24/7/365. However, running them plugged in all the time WILL kill the battery over time.
The mac vs pc debate is something that will probably go on forever. It's much like ford vs chevy...different strokes for different folks. However, you shouldn't bash the modern mac until you've tried 'em. My dad is pretty much computer illiterate, but he understands the mac a lot better than the pc. It's just a bit more intuitive.
By the way, with OS X, you never have to touch the command line if you don't want to. I do, because I find that I can get things done quicker via the command line than I can with the cutesy windows. It's nice to have the command line as an option though.
I'm not a mac-only zealot though. I have 3 AMD-based systems around here (I don't allow intel into my home), all running 24/7 along with my powermac and powerbook (which I use and leave on all the time). Most laptops today are designed to be left on 24/7/365. However, running them plugged in all the time WILL kill the battery over time.
The mac vs pc debate is something that will probably go on forever. It's much like ford vs chevy...different strokes for different folks. However, you shouldn't bash the modern mac until you've tried 'em. My dad is pretty much computer illiterate, but he understands the mac a lot better than the pc. It's just a bit more intuitive.
Frank Marano
Well-Known Member
i prefer a mac to edit music....like real live studio music but for games and internet, i would take a PC......
scott r
Well-Known Member
For games, there's no question, you MUST have a PC. The games on a mac are few and far between.
I don't know why, but for some oddball reason, my mac is slower on the net than my linux boxes. It seems to take a bit longer to find a page. Now that I run my mac through a proxy (which runs on the linux box), it's as fast as any PC out there.
I don't know why, but for some oddball reason, my mac is slower on the net than my linux boxes. It seems to take a bit longer to find a page. Now that I run my mac through a proxy (which runs on the linux box), it's as fast as any PC out there.
scott r
Well-Known Member
Ryan, I bought my last mac this year. Fortunately, I'll be able to run OS X on my AMD machines with a few hacks. 
If Apple makes it so that I cannot run OS X on my AMD boxes, I'll switch to linux/unix full-time. I do own a ton of apple stock, so I hope this intel switch works out for them, I just won't be buying any of their computers. With intel's lack of innovation over the past 2-3 years, I'm quite surprised that apple went with them instead of AMD.
If Apple makes it so that I cannot run OS X on my AMD boxes, I'll switch to linux/unix full-time. I do own a ton of apple stock, so I hope this intel switch works out for them, I just won't be buying any of their computers. With intel's lack of innovation over the past 2-3 years, I'm quite surprised that apple went with them instead of AMD.
Andy G
Active Member
Apple went with Intel simply because AMD has a reputation of not being able to deliver when their products are in demand.
In the past, just about every time AMD had a better chip than Intel, they could not produce enough for market. Apple does not want that kind of risk. Not being able to fill orders because you are waiting for parts is not good for business.
But AMD is also defying that reputation, and has been for about the past 2 years, thanks to a new fab that came online in 2000, and another that came online last month. They have been able to deliver just about everything the market has wanted....but Opteron prices are still sky high and that tells you the demand is also.
I personally think Apples 3-5% market share would have been no sweat for AMD. But it would have been a gamble for Apple, so I understand their decision. With AMD's performance over the past few years, I would have gambled, but I can see why you wouldn't.
Intel is pretty much out of the game until their next generation of chips is available. Most semiconductor analysts will tell you they are going to trail AMD in performace, power consumption, and fab technology until late 2007.
Another thing to realize, Intel practically gives chips to people like Dell. They may have made a deal with Apple that AMD couldn't touch.
"You put 'Intel Inside' on the front of the box, we GIVE you more chips"
In the past, just about every time AMD had a better chip than Intel, they could not produce enough for market. Apple does not want that kind of risk. Not being able to fill orders because you are waiting for parts is not good for business.
But AMD is also defying that reputation, and has been for about the past 2 years, thanks to a new fab that came online in 2000, and another that came online last month. They have been able to deliver just about everything the market has wanted....but Opteron prices are still sky high and that tells you the demand is also.
I personally think Apples 3-5% market share would have been no sweat for AMD. But it would have been a gamble for Apple, so I understand their decision. With AMD's performance over the past few years, I would have gambled, but I can see why you wouldn't.
Intel is pretty much out of the game until their next generation of chips is available. Most semiconductor analysts will tell you they are going to trail AMD in performace, power consumption, and fab technology until late 2007.
Another thing to realize, Intel practically gives chips to people like Dell. They may have made a deal with Apple that AMD couldn't touch.
"You put 'Intel Inside' on the front of the box, we GIVE you more chips"
scott r
Well-Known Member
You can polish a turd all day, and the only thing you end up with at the end of the day is a shiny turd.
Intel's "free" or "cheap" policy doesn't make 'em better.
Intel's "free" or "cheap" policy doesn't make 'em better.
Andy G
Active Member
Oh, I absolutely agree.
But in the money driven corperate world, a free turd is a free turd. Especially when half of your clientele won't know the difference.
But in the money driven corperate world, a free turd is a free turd. Especially when half of your clientele won't know the difference.
scott r
Well-Known Member
Mac users are very perceptive. In fact, there are a LOT of mac users who were very upset by the switch. The message boards were jammed with users who have been loyal to apple for 15-20 years who felt betrayed. I guess the same thing happened when the switch to the PowerPC chip was made too though.
It just seems silly that apple would do this NOW. IBM is finally getting their act together. Apple has had ads on EVERY hardware page showing how much faster/better/cooler PPC processors were than Intel's. Even AFTER the switch announcement, apple STILL had anti-intel propaganda on their site. I really hope apple hasn't shot itself in the foot with this switch to Intel. I think a lot of people would have been a LOT happier if they'd just gone with AMD. If this hurts my stock price come January, I'm gonna be rather upset.
It just seems silly that apple would do this NOW. IBM is finally getting their act together. Apple has had ads on EVERY hardware page showing how much faster/better/cooler PPC processors were than Intel's. Even AFTER the switch announcement, apple STILL had anti-intel propaganda on their site. I really hope apple hasn't shot itself in the foot with this switch to Intel. I think a lot of people would have been a LOT happier if they'd just gone with AMD. If this hurts my stock price come January, I'm gonna be rather upset.
